The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Compatability With Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research, no attribution or sources to back up the claims. Also, goes against wikipedia is not a manual. Does not conform to WP:MoS. soum (0_o) 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a manual. That is not one of the criterion for speedy deletion so there is no point in recommending it as such. --Cyrus Andiron 14:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nom and Cyrus. Thunderwing 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - who does the creator think is going to look on Wikipedia for this instead of Apple's website, anyway? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced. The iPod's compatability with Windows Vista is of concern, of course, but this information could easily be handled with a sentence in the Windows Vista and iPod articles. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per the nominator. Acalamari 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I personally know the person who made this article. he is new here, and he is trying to learn the ropes. before deleting, could the nominator please explain to User:zanorath why it is being deleted. I can see the sense in removing the article, but please wait until he can at least defend himself. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I already did. See his talk page. --soum (0_o) 07:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My claims are backed up, if you dont beleave me go and speak to the head of tech suport for apple conputer inc. he is the one who told me how to fix my iPod. This aricle explains in symple words what the problem is and how to fix it. It is not a manuel. It states the problem, then explains how to fix it, is this that bad? And to those who said it should be in the iPod or Windows Vista articles, I have tried putting it there, but it has been deleted. And one other thing people will look here rather than on apples website, because there is nothing about this issue on apples website, even though the tech support guys told me they would make a post about it on there website. And the reason I put it on Wiki is beaucse it is a very popular means of getting information and I personally can not put a page about it on apple's website. Those are my resons, and think about it, iPod is the most popular MP3 player in the world, and Windows the most popular OS, how many people do you think will be affected by this problem? I had to spend three hours on the phone to apple and microsoft before I finnaly got it worrking. If this article had igsited when I first got my iPod all I would have had to do was type in 'iPod Compatability With Windows Vista' into Google or wiki and I would have found out what the problem was and how to fix it and been up and syncing in under 5 minutes!

Dosnt this warrent keeping the article? Zanorath 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Zanorath[reply]

• • I'm not sure Sam. I'll see what i can do to fix it up and make it more formal and less like a manual, but I think the main problem is the actual importance of the article. While you may disagree with this, many others will support it. Unless you find more info on the subject, many will say the issue doesn't warrant an aticle. So 1. find more information. 2.make it more inline with the MoS 3.Convince the others on why to keep and 4. Fix up the lousy amount of spelling and grammar problems that somewhat lessen the quality of the article (this is very important, even for people to believe your credibility on talk pages.) I really think that you may need to look at these things Sam. They are the The five pillars of Wikipedia that usually accompany a welcoming message that I'm surprised you haven't recieved on your talk page yet. Please read them very carefully, and take in everythin g they are saying. If you put in the effort to learn the policies and guidelines, people will be more accepting of your contributions.

Also, you may want to at this. there you can get help on how to edit wikipedia successfully and make good use of your time here. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete an unencyclopedic, but certainly was not appropriate for speedy. How could anyone have thought this would not be contested?DGG 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.